MCP server package version only—not image builds or compose status.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output varies depending on whether the latest-version check is enabled, and if so the agent should present a comparison URL rather than just the version.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, all functional, with the scope restriction front-loaded before the usage conditions. The first line duplicates the title verbatim, which is mildly wasteful, but nothing else is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description already notes the conditional output behavior. For a zero-parameter read tool, the definition covers what an agent needs; only deep detail on the version-comparison mechanics is absent and that is schema territory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-related gap exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'MCP server package version only,' and explicitly excludes related-but-different concepts ('not image builds or compose status'). This distinguishes it cleanly from image-builder and other siblings that surface build/compose data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit, narrow trigger ('Use ONLY if the user asks for the Red Hat Insights MCP server version, or when there is an API or authentication issue'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. No alternative tool competes for this purpose, so the constraint is complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.